For Release: Sept. 13, 1997
‘Veggie libel’ bill stopped in Assembly
A proposal that proponents concede is a prelude to legislation allowing growers to sue farm workers, consumers and environmentalists for criticizing agricultural products was rejected this week by the state Assembly. Such "veggie libel" laws exist in a dozen other states.
SB 1334, by state Sen. Jim Costa (D-Fresno), would have authorized a study to be due back to the Legislature next year on the economic impacts of defamatory statements about farm products. Although backers of the bill claim it is only study measure, a key sponsor–the Western Growers Association–acknowledged on its web site that SB 1334 is part of "an incremental approach" to passing a California veggie libel statute. A brief from the May 1997 WGA newsletter states, "recognizing the futility of passing [veggie libel] legislation because of the current makeup of the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees, the agricultural industry is pursuing an incremental approach, a strategy which has proven successful in the past."
Costa tried unsuccessfully in 1995 to enact legislation that would have created a new civil cause of action against those defaming agricultural products.
The United Farm Workers, which led opposition to this year’s study bill, hailed the 37-37 Assembly vote turning down Costa’s SB 1334. Efforts to have the measure reconsidered were abandoned Friday, Sept. 12, on the last day of the 1997 legislative session.
"This bill is clearly aimed at creating a new legal weapon against the UFW and other groups that raise in public issues such as health threats and injustices facing consumers and farm workers," said UFW spokesman Marc Grossman, who also serves as the union’s Sacramento lobbyist. "SB 1334 is part of an agribusiness effort to stop the American people from hearing the truth about abuses endured by farm workers and the dangers posed by unsafe food and toxic pesticides." The WGA represents most strawberry growers the UFW is battling on the Central Coast.
The UFW has pledged to vigorously oppose a new bid by agribusiness anticipated in 1998 that would impose strict penalties for voicing concerns about pesticide use, food safety or mistreatment of workers in the fields.
– end –
August, 1997
SB 1334 Attacks Farm workers,
Environmentalists, First Amendment
The study called for under Senator Costa’s SB 1334, supported primarily by the Western Growers Association, would be produced in time to bolster legislation next year imposing harsh new penalties on those who "defame" produce. Such laws have been passed in a dozen other states.
•Statements critical of agricultural products on any basis would be subject to the state study-and perhaps ultimately state restrictions. That could cover statements critical of certain agricultural products because of health and safety concerns such as threats from toxic pesticides, labor disputes or other abusive treatment of farm workers.
For example, a lawful primary boycott of a product could be "disparaging" and thus come under SB 1334. The proposed SB 1334 study could bring under scrutiny United Farm Workers grape boycott activities during the 1980s, including Cesar Chavez’s 36-day fast in 1988 over the pesticide poisoning of farm workers and their children.
•Even limiting the inquiry to"false" claims about food safety is troubling. How do you know for certain whether particular claims are true or false? Full knowledge is not always available when issues are first raised publicly. When the UFW first attacked DDT in the 1960s as a threat to farm workers and the public, scientific evidence was not as clear as it is today. The same is true about other pesticides that have since been banned–and the dangers cigarettes pose to public health. If all such public discussions are suppressed, public health efforts would be significantly set back.
•Traditional court remedies are already available for growers and others who believe their products have been defamed or disparaged by false claims. The Business and Professions Code provides statutory remedies.
•Finally, many statements that are disparaging but not false are fully protected by both the U.S. and California Constitutions. It should not be the business of the state to suppress such statements.